CockersOnline Forum

Cocker Specific Discussion => Feeding => Topic started by: saffysmum on December 03, 2010, 09:53:40 AM

Title: Bakers complete
Post by: saffysmum on December 03, 2010, 09:53:40 AM: Well, since I haven't been able to move my car in over a week, it was great timing to run out of dog food! So off to my local shop with the sledge and I had a choice between tins of wet food or bakers complete. I went for the bakers. Big mistake! Mine absolutely love it! To the point that they are stealing more out of the bag when they get the chance. Now my impression of that food was it was terrible and full of aditives but I haven't noticed any difference yet either poo or behaviour wize. Is it as bad as they say? IF so, someone is going to have to tell my lot that it is available in emergencies only ph34r
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Emma xx on December 03, 2010, 09:56:37 AM: Yeah i think it is pretty awful ingredients wise. Its got laods of colourings in it too to make the biscuits different colours.

I suppose it's a bit like McDonalds, tastes fab but eating it all the time would not do you any favours at all :005:. I'd stick to the better quaility food when you can get it!

Emma xx
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Karma on December 03, 2010, 10:38:55 AM: Agree with Emma - dogs love it in the same way children love sweets.... ;)

As an emergency, it's certainly better than starving, but it really is jammed full of unnecessaries...
As an illustration, my Dad's dog used to be on Bakers - her breath stank and her coat was dull... saw the vet many times about her breath (it was honestly eye-watering!!!) but there was nothing causing it. I persuaded Dad to change her kibble, and he went for JWB - her breath improved within a couple of weeks, and her coat also improved. She's now raw-fed and has normal breath (for a 10yr old dog with some broken teeth), her coat is great and her arthritis isn't as troublesome...
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: mooching on December 03, 2010, 11:00:03 AM: If it was me, I'd have gone for the canned food. Or probably rather gone for some "real food", eg chicken or white fish and rice/pasta, or some eggs, or canned pilchards. Anything really, other than Bakers or Beta.

The artificial colours and preservatives can lead to hyperactivity and/or allergies and gut problems, the chemical antioxidants they use are widely believed to be carcinogenic in humans, and that's quite apart from the sugar content and the fact that they use all kinds of waste products (animal waste, cereal waste, vegetable waste). Plus of course that the meat source is mostly unnamed (could feasibly be from any animal at all) and even the tiny named meat source could be from any part of the animal at all.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Mittens on December 03, 2010, 12:43:31 PM: Agree with everyone - Eddie has been on Pro Plan with a small amount of fish, mince or chicken since he was a baby, and when we got Ruby 15 months ago I quickly got her off Bakers Complete and on to the same (she was OCD and hyperactive to say the least) - well I was away two weeks ago and they ran out of food so my OH got them a box of Bakers complete, which of course they loved, and with a "want not waste not" mentality he insisted we finish the box ----- HUGE mistake as by the end of the week my usually fairly placid pupsters were climbing the walls, and the play fighting became a constant menace, getting totally out of hand (usually it's a quick box and then nap! :005:). They are back on their normal food now and i've certainly seen them gradually calm down a bit :lol:
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Holly2009 on December 03, 2010, 02:00:08 PM: Holly was getting quite fussy & had a spell on Bakers complete, loved it & was completely normal! Same nice coat, same Holly as usual, poops the same, no bad breath etc!
After five months, reading bits n bobs on COL about ingredients & long term effects we've moved onto JWB, she has a 'bit' softer poops & her breath smells :005: but long term it's better for her! :o :blink:
(Dont feel bad saffysmum I dont think any worse of you :005: some people are just doggy food snobs & rightfully so) :005:
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Cockertime Blues on December 03, 2010, 02:11:13 PM: I think I'd have gone for cooking porridge or rice (always available) and meat or an egg rather than Bakers.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Petepreston on December 03, 2010, 03:10:21 PM: We were advised away from the tinned foods because the contents aren't consistent so any ingredients on the tin aren't in there in the same ratio from one tin to another. They state the batch contents. So you can go from a tin with no nasty stuff in it to one that has a concentration of them.

I looked into ProPlan and it wasn't too much better. It's worth checking who makes which foods and who owns which companies. It was shocking to see how many are ownered by the same one or two major companies. Some of them even have the nerve to claim that their food is better for your dog than other brands that they own.

I went with Burn's but accidentally advised three people to look at JWB (which I thought I'd gone with). One was a Cocker owner and she reports that her dogs are now much livelier but more even tempered (if that's the right phrase) and my in-laws switched from a dry food with ceasar added to JWB and the female Westie has lost weight without them trying anything more drastic - she was getting seriously overweight at only 1 year old.

It's the long term issues that convinced me as I can't see any other differences since stopping Proplan. Posie's coat was a little greasy and she was generally smelly but that could have been to do with her puppy habits.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: elaine.e on December 03, 2010, 03:22:29 PM: I agree with Emma, that Bakers is a bit like McDonalds, but I wouldn't worry about using it for a few days or so if I was snowed in. The worst that's going to happen is they may be a bit hyper and may have slightly runny poos :o

The tricky bit might be persuading them back on their usual food. Maybe you could keep a bit of Bakers to mix half and half with their normal food for a couple of days to wean them back onto the healthy stuff.

There might be an added bonus though - if it makes them a bit windy it could cut down on the heating bills :005: :005:
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Petepreston on December 03, 2010, 03:33:46 PM: Oh, I meant to say that I agree with the McDonald's analogy. I love a junk burger as much as the next slob, but I wouldn't want to eat one every day. Did you see Supersize Me? OMG :o
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Mudmagnets on December 03, 2010, 11:08:01 PM: Quote from: Petepreston on December 03, 2010, 03:33:46 PM
Oh, I meant to say that I agree with the McDonald's analogy. I love a junk burger as much as the next slob, but I wouldn't want to eat one every day. Did you see Supersize Me? OMG :o

NO missed that!! when were you on :o

Re the emergencey Baker rations, can't think it would hurt for a short period, thought I was gonna have to do the same the other day, get some Butchers Tinned in as I had nearly run out of NatureDiet. Luckily N/D delivered just in time, bless 'em :angel: Had they not though I have a couple of tins in now, just in case. ;)
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: saffysmum on December 04, 2010, 08:50:31 AM: It's OK guys. I managed out to the pet shop yesterday and got 2 bags of my usual. I was a bit worried when I put it down last night that I used some left-over bolognase mince mixed through but they scoffed their dinner no problems.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: carolinemaltas on December 04, 2010, 09:32:02 AM: Well what a totally awful dog owner I must be. Both our dogs have Bakers complete all the time- our Vet said it was fine and that there was a lot of snobbery in dog food ! Our last retirevers were all on it and the last two lived until 14 1/2 and 12 1/2...and do you know what ( shock horror!!) I even give them butchers tripe tinned food sometimes. What happened before when there was only tinned dog food available and "complete" dried foods hadn't been invented.

I am obviously an unfit mother and not a worthy cocker owner......
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: seaangler on December 04, 2010, 09:50:57 AM: Quote from: carolinemaltas on December 04, 2010, 09:32:02 AM
Well what a totally awful dog owner I must be. Both our dogs have Bakers complete all the time- our Vet said it was fine and that there was a lot of snobbery in dog food ! Our last retirevers were all on it and the last two lived until 14 1/2 and 12 1/2...and do you know what ( shock horror!!) I even give them butchers tripe tinned food sometimes. What happened before when there was only tinned dog food available and "complete" dried foods hadn't been invented.

I am obviously an unfit mother and not a worthy cocker owner......

YOU ARE NOT...I totally agree with you...Its the wife ideal the food that are Dogs are on...At the moment J.W.B.L for Peggy and Veterinary food for Cindy costing a bomb...If you look on the ingredients of the Bakers you are only paying for feet and feathers a little protean and the rest of it is rubbish that goes into it as to paying twice as dear for the food we pay out for are peggy....Are dogs would pick up and eat any thing while out and about...Its only us that stops them....Including cow/horse Sh one T....

All i can say is see how they get on with BAKERS in the next week or so..And see if there is any change in them....After all Bakers is a cheap top selling dog food!!!!
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Karma on December 04, 2010, 10:00:45 AM: Quote from: carolinemaltas on December 04, 2010, 09:32:02 AM
Well what a totally awful dog owner I must be. Both our dogs have Bakers complete all the time- our Vet said it was fine and that there was a lot of snobbery in dog food ! Our last retirevers were all on it and the last two lived until 14 1/2 and 12 1/2...and do you know what ( shock horror!!) I even give them butchers tripe tinned food sometimes. What happened before when there was only tinned dog food available and "complete" dried foods hadn't been invented.

I am obviously an unfit mother and not a worthy cocker owner......

Nobody is saying you are an unfit mother or an unworthy cocker owner - however your vet is talking as much tripe as is in the tins of butchers.... (which I would feed above bakers any time!).
Just because some dogs live long lives on low quality food doesn't mean it's a good food... it's not snobbery - I have no objection to it being a cheap food - I object to the amount of artificial colours and other additives, and the fact that it has such a low meat content.

What happened before complete foods were available?? Dogs ate a large variety of leftovers (from proper food, rather than the convenience rubbish we eat these days) - far healthier than a lot of these complete foods... they would get the entrails out of the sunday roast, bones to chew on etc etc. They weren't fed a diet artificially high in wheat and other cereals, they weren't fed loads of carbohydrate and they weren't fed food full of additives.

For what it's worth, my Dad's dog's vet was perfectly happy with his dog on Bakers - he was adamant her breath was nothing to do with food... but the results of changing speak for themselves... ;)
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: mooching on December 04, 2010, 10:21:47 AM: Quote from: carolinemaltas on December 04, 2010, 09:32:02 AM
Well what a totally awful dog owner I must be. Both our dogs have Bakers complete all the time- our Vet said it was fine and that there was a lot of snobbery in dog food ! Our last retirevers were all on it and the last two lived until 14 1/2 and 12 1/2...and do you know what ( shock horror!!) I even give them butchers tripe tinned food sometimes. What happened before when there was only tinned dog food available and "complete" dried foods hadn't been invented.

I am obviously an unfit mother and not a worthy cocker owner......

I have no problems with Butchers tinned food - in fact, my pup Alfie had Butchers Puppy food when he was younger, he was weaned onto it by the breeder, and then supplemented with kibble, so we continued doing the same when we first got him. My vet too says that Butchers and Chappie are reasonable foods.

But Bakers (and Beta) .....I'd rather give practically anything over them. Before I came to this forum, all I knew about Bakers was that it contained lots of artificial colouring, and I was suspicious of that. Dogs don't care what colour their food is, and I couldn't help wondering if the colouring was to attract their human owners and maybe even to disguise what else is in there. It wasn't until I'd got here and read lots of interesting posts on what's in various dog foods that I started to do my own research and was stunned with what I found out. Before that, I had tended towards just accepting what dog food companies put on their labels, and not really looking much deeper.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: carolinemaltas on December 04, 2010, 11:12:23 AM: But its a case of the Kings New Clothes if we are told its bad for them then it must be!! I totally trust my vet he has seen me through thick and thin over the last 30 years I do not beleive he would tell me tripe. We all eat things that have colours and additives most of which are completely harmless. If Bakers was that bad for your dog they wouldn't be allowed to sell it and it wouldn;t be the best selling brand. Henry and Woody are bright alert dogs with fabulous shiney coats and not a whiff of bad breath ( none of them ever did....I am a bit astounded at that one!)

Everyone to their own and I am not going to be made to feel bad abot it..

I am bowing out of this forum now.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Karma on December 04, 2010, 11:24:10 AM: Quote from: carolinemaltas on December 04, 2010, 11:12:23 AM

Everyone to their own and I am not going to be made to feel bad abot it..

I am bowing out of this forum now.

Again, no-one is trying to make you feel bad about it...
Yes, we all eat some things that are not good for us - and in moderation that has no impact.
There are people who have smoked all their life and are horribly healthy - does that mean anyone who says that smoking is bad for you is wrong?? No... these things only increase liklihoods of problems - they are not a direct cause.
If you are happy feeding Bakers, fine...
But don't be so naive to think that the fact that it is the best selling brand means it's good (MacDonalds, anyone? Chocolate bars? Fizzy drinks?). If Henry and Woody are doing well on it, that's fine - no-one is saying you have to change to stay a member of the forum. But don't dismiss other people's experiences and opinions. :-\ Bakers is a top selling brand because it looks good to humans, it is widely available in supermarkets and it is heavily marketed. And, yes, plenty of dogs do fine on it, thank you very much. But plenty of others don't - do you really think we should stop saying that just to avoid offending people who do feed it??

Your vet may be genuine in his opinion - but he IS wrong. Vets aren't experts in nutrition... I would far rather do my own research (the same as I would do if my doctor was recommending something to me...).
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Petepreston on December 04, 2010, 11:40:36 AM: I hope you don't leave carolinemaltas. This forum can sometimes be very concensus appearing, and I've had occasions where I though my view was being put down without consideration, but the truth of the matter is that we all have our opinions based, mostly I hope, on actual experience or balanced reading/consideration.

I grew up with a dog that was fed tinned food exclusively, and because of financial reasons she often had to make do with Chappie,, which I've heard some bpeople rave about these days, but was then as bad as it got (and cheap too).

This quote comes very close to the situation: "What happened before complete foods were available?? Dogs ate a large variety of leftovers (from proper food, rather than the convenience rubbish we eat these days) - far healthier than a lot of these complete foods... they would get the entrails out of the sunday roast, bones to chew on etc etc. They weren't fed a diet artificially high in wheat and other cereals, they weren't fed loads of carbohydrate and they weren't fed food full of additives."

Another thing to consider is that the commercial aspects of vet practices is that they are much more tied in to the drug and food manufacturers than they ever were before. Consider how much your vet bills have gone up over the time you've had dogs. I see them in the same light as dentists: they still do the job but now seem to drive around in much more expensive cars.

The article that brought a lot of the "food snobbery" to the forefront pointed out an absolute fact: most vetinary schools have their nutrician courses subsidised or even wholly funded by food manufacturers. This has to have a knock effect, whether the vets are knowingly biased or not. My vet willingly agreed that some foods are better than others and that wheat is not a good filler. Is my vet in the pocket of JWB, Burn's or whoever? Possibly, but that also opens the possibility that other vets are in the pocket of the brands that use the wheat filler.

On balance, I decided to change Posie over to Burn's, and that was after much advice including the independant local shop who sell Bakers as well as the "posh" stuff. They are a commercial outlet and so will provide what their customers demand, but they advised in favour of the "posh" varieties. I can't imagine the capacity to bribe a shopkeeper is greater with the smaller companies than a multinational, so I give a little more weight to their opinion.

Finally, and I think most importantly, we all do what we believe is best for our animals, and if you are happy with what you do, then it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks - as long as you have the information to make that decision.

Stay and see how good this forum is. Don't take it personally if somebody disagrees with you (or even if they appears nasty). Not everyone has good communication skills, some people are genuinely just narrow-minded and some people like an argument, but the verwhelming majority in here are good folk and I doubt the occasional other really means any harm but is maybe just more passionate with a different viewpoint.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: mooching on December 04, 2010, 11:44:39 AM: Quote from: carolinemaltas on December 04, 2010, 11:12:23 AM
We all eat things that have colours and additives most of which are completely harmless. If Bakers was that bad for your dog they wouldn't be allowed to sell it and it wouldn;t be the best selling brand.
When I started my research, I was surprised (shocked really) at the lack of Government rules/regulations regarding pet food.

Unless the animal you're feeding is in the human food chain, then manufacturers can basically put whatever they like in the food.

And IMO the reason it's the best-selling brand is because it's heavily discounted to supermarkets and very widely available.
Quote
Everyone to their own and I am not going to be made to feel bad abot it..
No-one's trying to make anyone feel bad. The OP asked a question and we're giving our opinions on the topic - there's absolutely no need to take it personally.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Magic Star on December 04, 2010, 03:09:54 PM: Caroline, I don't think you need to leave the forum as no-one was personally attacking you and we all have different ideas about what is suitable for our dogs. When my Indie was young she was very fussy and would only eat Bakers, she wasn't on it long, just long enough to get her in the habit of eating, even then she was fussy and picked out the meaty chunks and left the biscuits :005: It served its purpose, but I would never feed it again or advise anyone else too, but it is of course down to individual choice, there are many on this forum who feed BARF and personally I would never do that, doesn't mean they are bad for feeding it or I am bad for not, just a personal opinion, if you see what I mean. It would be a shame for you to leave, I am sure no-one here feels you are a bad owner based on the fact that you chose to fee Bakers :blink: Forums are full of conflicting advise sometimes and its hard to decipher what to do for the best, all we can do as owners is collate information do our own research and make our own judgements :D

To the OP: I wouldn't worry too much about feeding the Bakers for the short term, although you may find they try it on a bit now at tea time, as they have tasted something different and probably want more :005: If you do find them being fussy with their usual kibble just chuck a bit of bakers in with thier normal food and gradually throw in less and less pieces ;) They will soon forget and be back on their own food and wolfing it down again.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: mooching on December 04, 2010, 03:18:01 PM: Obviously I'm not Caroline, but I am thinking/hoping that she likely meant she was leaving this discussion, this folder, not the actual forum.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: ali carrera on December 04, 2010, 07:10:32 PM: This thread has concerned me.

The moderators constantly remind us that this forum is read by Members and Guests.

I have no opinion about the discussed dog food as my dogs have never been fed the product

HOWEVER I would like KARMA to substantiate the following quotes, and make us aware of her qualification(s) -

" And, yes, plenty of dogs do fine on it, thank you very much. But plenty of others don't - do you really think we should stop saying that just to avoid offending people who do feed it??"

"Your vet may be genuine in his opinion - but he IS wrong"

(http://cockersonline.co.uk/discuss/Themes/default/images/warnwarn.gif) Continued rudeness to other FMs and now moderators.
(http://cockersonline.co.uk/discuss/Themes/default/images/warnpmod.gif)
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Karma on December 04, 2010, 07:28:51 PM: I have never claimed to have qualifications.

It is not snobbery that steers people away from Bakers - the vet in question was stating that it was, therefore he is wrong on that point. It is not a great food - there are sites which have scientifically looked into the composition of pet foods and they do not rate Bakers at all -
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/showproduct.php?product=426&cat=all (http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/showproduct.php?product=426&cat=all)

And members of this forum are far from the only people who suggest it has adverse effects on their dogs.

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews55775.html (http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews55775.html)

I could continue, but I'm not sure why I should. I was perfectly polite in all my posts, and repeatedly stated that if Bakers suited Caroline's individual dogs, no-one was going to have a go at her for doing so, nor did it mean she was a bad owner.
So I'm not sure why the capitals for my name (which is internet language is shouting) are called for. I'm also not sure why the fact that this is read by members and guests is relevant...

I've given my opinion, backed up by my personal experience, and the experience of others... I've been perfectly polite in doing so, and throughout have upheld the right of owners to make their own food choices...
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Victoria25 on December 04, 2010, 07:32:02 PM: I agree Karma, I don't see how this thread is any different from all the other threads where someone asks for opinions!
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Mudmagnets on December 04, 2010, 08:02:03 PM: The moderators constantly remind us that this forum is read by Members and Guests.

From what I have read of this thread, no-one has been rude or offensive in their comments - which is very likely why the moderators have not found it necessary to intervene, which they would have, had that been the case.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: ali carrera on December 04, 2010, 08:12:09 PM: I think karma(lower case) and Mudmagnets(lowercase) have failed to miss the point

This was not a criticism of the posts on the thread, but an observation that if one is so damning about a product on a public forum.... then

they have to substantiate the claims......

was that all in lower(not shouting case)
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Karma on December 04, 2010, 08:25:01 PM: Quote from: ali carrera on December 04, 2010, 08:12:09 PM
I think karma(lower case) and Mudmagnets(lowercase) have failed to miss the point...

...was that all in lower(not shouting case)

Is there really any need for such antagonism? :dunno:
If you were concerned about the legal implications of discussing a branded product in negative terms, why not use the report to moderator button rather than having a go at people who were involved in a perfectly mature discussion? FWIW I don't think anyone has said anything legally dubious... ;)

The whole tone of your posts seemed confrontational and antagonistic - but maybe sleep deprivation is making me unusually touchy, and in case that is the case I will bow out of this thread now. :D
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Colin on December 04, 2010, 08:39:08 PM: If anyone feels a post goes against the site rules then the best thing is to click the 'report to moderator' button and leave it to one of the mods to sort out - intervening in such a rude, sarcastic way as was done here just drags the thread down into pointless bickering. For what it's worth I don't see anything wrong with Karma's posts ( she's just stated her opinions, as have others) but I'll lock the thread for the time being to give everyone a chance to calm down - I'm sure there's better ways of spending a saturday night than arguing over dog food on the internet. :lol2:
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Colin on December 05, 2010, 02:39:30 PM: I've unlocked the thread now, if the discussion continues please keep it polite and respectful. Differing views are fine but no more personal attacks, accusations of snobbery or public announcements of leaving please or the thread will just end up deteriorating again. Thanks.
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: black taz on December 05, 2010, 06:04:35 PM: i can only comment on the difference in behaviour when i changed Taz from Bakers to Hills Scientific - unrecogniseable. Although i guess some of this could have been due to my excellent training (not :lol2: :lol2:)
Title: Re: Bakers complete
Post by: Nicola on December 05, 2010, 06:34:04 PM: Unfortunately it seems that some people can't follow simple rules about keeping threads on topic and being polite to other forum members so this thread will now remain locked. Sorry to all those who were actually trying to have a constructive discussion on here.

Black Taz as yours is the last post this is not aimed at you by the way!